John Romano Hates Jerramy Stevens

In case you wondered where John Romano of the Times stood on the whole re-signing Jerramy Stevens thing, here's the headline of the lead story on the Times' Bucs site:

By re-signing TE Stevens, the Bucs lose respect

Now, this article is obviously Romano's opinion, so I'm not going to come down as hard on him as I do the weasels who sneak baseless opinions into articles and try to pass them off as facts. But something has to be said here.

A lot of Romano's article revolves around the rape accusation from 2000, a non-case where no charges were even filed against Stevens. Very few people were talking about this prior to the article in the Seattle Times earlier this year that absolutely laid waste to any semblance of positive public opinion that Stevens may have built. I don't want to rehash the Seattle Times article again because I already did it here. But I should repeat my opinion that the author of that article appears to be biased and have a serious ax to grind. The accusations he makes are far-reaching and circumstantial at best. But Romano, as a journalist, seems to be reading it like everyone else -- he just feels like Stevens is guilty because of the way he is portrayed in the Seattle article.

But I defy anyone to read the Seattle Times article from January and not have a high suspicion that Stevens did something horribly, frighteningly wrong.

I'm pretty sure I read similar opinions of the Duke lacrosse players a couple years ago. I am also unaware of any counter-article written from either Stevens's, the King County DA or the Seattle police's perspective. So right now, we really only have one version of this story.

Football players lie. Nineteen-year old girls lie. Cops lie. Attorneys lie. And probably all of them did so during this investigation. That's why we have a legal system to sort through all of it and be a judge. And, in this particular case, it was determined that there wasn't even enough evidence to bring the matter before a grand jury. I wasn't there, so I kind of have to take their word for it, even if everyone's word in this matter is suspect. But to refer to Stevens as a rapist is, at this point, factually incorrect.

Huh, I guess I did rehash it.

So, what can we factually say about Stevens? Well, here's a bulleted list. Duplicates are, unfortunately, intentional.

• Misdemeanor assault
• Pot possession
• Reckless driving
• Hit and run
• Reckless driving
• DWI
• Probation violation
• DUI ("Extreme" version)

I get that some people are uncomfortable with the Bucs re-signing Stevens. He's not a good person. But from my standpoint, he still hasn't gotten into any further trouble since the Bucs signed him last year. So if I was willing to give him a chance then, I kind of still have to now. I'm sure that's the same thing Bruce Allen is thinking. Sometimes it pays off and you have a Michael Pittman. Sometimes it doesn't and you have a David Boston. And if Romano thinks Bruce Allen is the devil for giving second chances to troublemakers, he should ask Tony Dungy why he re-signed Dominic Rhodes after he was suspended for substance abuse and arrested for DUI last year.

Oh, I almost forgot, this is just weak:

Based on the evidence reported in the Seattle Times, a young woman might have been raped outside of her University of Washington sorority and then again by prosecutors and school officials.

How many months has Romano had that sentence stored away in his computer just waiting for Stevens to get re-signed? Romano acts all offended and indignant about Stevens coming back, but he's secretly relieved that the Bucs made a move that some fans will definitely not like so he has a reason to step back on his anti-Gruce soapbox. That Warrick Dunn signing had him scared for a while.